-=| Dominic Hargreaves, Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:11:04PM +0100 |=- > I noticed that padre was in the pkg-perl repositories, and went to > look at fixing #639042; this raised a few questions: Cool. > Currently the master branch is for a version in experimental. What > is the expected timescale before this branch is uploaded to unstable? The reason for using experimental is that the new Padre breaks some of the plugins. So the idea was to stage Padre and the plugins (libpadre-plugin-*-perl) in experimental, then upload all to unstable. This didn't work as smooth as hoped though, mainly due to absence on my side. Another reason is that the idea of using virtual provides for the padre API version didn't work out well. Padre provides several different APIs and a given new release may break only some of them, keeping compatibility with some plugins and breaking it with others. A more manageable (but still time consuming) approach may be to use Breaks in new padre releases to flag plugins that need to be upgraded together. > If more than a few weeks, what would the preferred branch name be > for an unstable interim release, as far as pkg-perl is concerned (and > shouldn't experimental releases be in a branch other than master to > start with, in general?) Probably. How does it sound to branch experimental from master, revert master to the version in unstable and take on from there? Later, when the dust around APIs, Breaks and plugins has settled, we could merge experimental back to master. > The package doesn't actually appear to be team maintained (according > to the Maintainer field). Is this intentional? If so, is it > appropriate for it to be in the pkg-perl repository area? This is a remnant from the times when "application" packages were considered "guests" in the group. We weren't sure if these fit in the "module" workflow. Feel free to fix the Maintainer field (and Uploaders too :). Thank you for your time looking at padre.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature